using a train as protection

Ok, let's have a bash at this...........

In the first instance, an accident similar to the stratford one (ie, tunnel section) is nigh on impossible now - back then, once a train had been tripped, and the trip arm was reset, any speed was possible. It was up to the driver to ensure he drove at a 'cautionary speed'.

These days, once a train trips past a signal, and the arm is reset, a circuit will (for 3 minutes) force the emergency brakes to apply if the train exceeds 10 mph. So if a train still managed to collide with the one in front, at 10 mph against the brakes on all cars.............well, i'd like to think it won't 'shove it' very far.

If a situation exist's where trains cannot be tripped, station-station working is put in. This means a train cannot leave a station until the preceeding train has departed the next station - hence only one train can remain in the section at any given time.

As for using a train for protection [in a tunnel section], in this instance (ie, emergency access), the train can only be used for up to 5 minutes. If the required work cannot be completed, but it is otherwise safe to run trains, the people needing the protection must start the process again.

No doubt the working reference manual details an exact distance limit for using a train as protection, but I must admit I haven't a clue what that may be. I'd suggest that a distance whereby the train operator can easily talk to the people on the track would be sensible.

Not forgetting that station staff can use a train as protection if they need to go on the track for any reason.

I've never been trained to allow for any such distance, probably as COLIN said, such a collision is virtually impossible as the train to the rear would have time to stop and if it didn't would probably simply end up being coupled to the train in the front.

not all areas have these key switches only place on the district that has them are aldgate east and putney bridge (putney bridge only puts back WG15 rt1 and WG14 this is for the network rail possession)
the central has another way called code destroyers these destroy the ATP codes in the area thus stopping the train

and besides using a protection key switch is another form of protection. Operating a key switch and using a train as protection will cause unnecessary delay, unless its absolutely needed.

A common reason for using a train for protection, is a Tech Officer doing a relamp of a signal. Holding a train on the westbound for a minute or so and then getting on his way. Using a KPS is more than likely going to hold eastbound trains too.

In this scenario the T/O will have to operate the KPS, walk to site, do the job, walk back from site, return the KPS to normal. A very unnecessary delay if you ask me.

The basic object of the signalling system is to keep trains a safe distance apart. If trains find themselves an unsafe distance apart it is probably due to some form of negligence by the following Train Operator. Taking posession of the Control Key by the Technition should be sufficient to prevent the protecting train from moving ( though I have been caught out, as a Guard, and nearly left behind by the Driver using his SPARE key from his bag rather than wait for me to take the forgotten Key up to him !!)
This should be sufficient protection for work to be carried out on the signalling using the protection of the stationary train. For work on the underside of the train I think I would want rather more protection !.
The' five minute' rule is to allow the Service to be kept moving - if neccesary of course if it takes half an hour to fix the fault so be it.

That may have been acceptable in the past, but any train operator found to have a "spare key" these days would most likely be looking at a different career path in the future.

Indeed - traction current off would be a good starter

if its a track circuit failure and its deemed to be a broken wire now we have been told that traction current MUST be turned off as the met line staff had a little shock from the track hose

All stocks used to have spares in the toolbox.

At least they were supposed to.

Looking back at the ramblings in my Reply # 16 I asked myself " Are the Staff who have real resposibility for the safety of the passengers (ie: Drivers, Signalmen, Bus Drivers,etc.) really paid, or compensated, sufficiently for the responsibility?"

I have held many positions in the Transport Industry in my time ( London Transport, British Railways, South Australia, Melbourne Tramways and Victorian Railways and have to admit the better paid positions have been when I did not have responsibility for Safety but mearly for having a little knowledge on the subject. A slight error in drafting a Sectional Appendix Instruction will be picked up later without any fear of Passenger's safety being put a risk.

If money isn't everything maybe vulnerable workers deserve to work a shorter working week ?

Thanks for that, no one informed us of the PG switches being OOC. You are worth your weight in gold with your specialist knowledge.

I think them OPO lights were a fantastic idea. It's a shame they weren't followed through.

Oh brother - Yet Another Acronym!!

Why aren't they just called "code destroyers"?

Makes you the ideal candidate for the job then?

(Sorry prjb - couldn't resist that )

(Bit like I expect to feel when I get the response to my interview today then)

Thanks prjb.

You have a PM.